|
|
First, some professors from Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (my alma mater), talking about the IPCC, climate change, and the science behind all this. It’s kind of long, but there is some really good information and explanations:
https://breeze.psu.edu/p84766772
A little plug: if you are a student looking for a college program and are interested in these topics, EMS at Penn State is a great place to check out. http://www.ems.psu.edu/ I graduated with a BS in Earth Science in 1984, back then I was able to get a degree with a multi-discliplinary approach, and took a bunch of climatology classes, environmental geology, meteorology, I even took and then TA’d a class on alternative energy.
Here’s the IPCC web site:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Mandate
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.
Who we are
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals
Why the IPCC was created
Climate change is a very complex issue: policymakers need an objective source of information about the causes of climate change, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences and the adaptation and mitigation options to respond to it. This is why WMO and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, industry literature and traditional practices, and a two stage review process by experts and governments.
Because of its intergovernmental nature, the IPCC is able to provide scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy-relevant but policy neutral way to decision makers. When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.
The IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they immediately become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, experts and students. The findings of the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 played a decisive role in leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was opened for signature in the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 and entered into force in 1994. It provides the overall policy framework for addressing the climate change issue. The IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995 provided key input for the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Third Assessment Report of 2001 as well as Special and Methodology Reports provided further information relevant for the development of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC continues to be a major source of information for the negotiations under the UNFCCC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mom...please read…
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
December 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The Summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
The average rate of warming of 0.1 - 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled’, significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the ‘precautionary principle’ because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on “fighting climate change”, as illustrated in the November 27th UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
Independent scientists, engineers and economists active in research of climate-related areas, http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open letter signatories-independent experts.html
Other professional persons knowledgeable about climate change who expressed support for the open letter to the UN Secretary-General.
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open letter signatories-other professionals.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, sorry, I tried to put comments in the letter in a different color, but that doesn’t work.
There are some good points in that letter. It is true that we cannot avoid climate change. The earth’s climate has a very long history of changes.
The question, rather, is whether our current activities, as humans, are accelerating these changes. I am not currently working in this field, so I do not pretend to be an expert. I do think it is important for anyone interested in this topic to read up on both sides of the debate and learn more (my reason for posting to begin with.)
Our earth is a resilient system of systems. It is very complex, and therefore it is very difficult to know the effects of human activity, especially in terms of linking causes directly to their effects. However, one does not have to be a scientist to see that humans are having negative effects on the global environment. The signs are everywhere.
I don’t believe that “prosperity”, “development”, “economic growth” and “preventing suffering” are incompatible with living more frugally—driving less, carpooling, trying not to be wasteful, not needing so many things. My cynical side wonders if the automobile and oil industries are behind the letter you posted.
In the end I think what is REALLY important is for human beings to learn to communicate and cooperate, to be free of the fear of people who are different, and to live more frugally. It’s how we can work together and use our resources wisely that will matter when we face global challenges. Economic growth and wealth generation do not solve all our problems, in fact, they create quite a few problems of their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES, exactly. If our primary purpose on this earth is wealth generation and economic growth, we are bound to lose, because there are not enough resources for everyone. And if we continue to use more than our share, we are bound to become involved in more global conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So declining economic figures and extremely high gas prices are exactly the tools that will bring the result, correct? People will be dependent on the Gov’t to spend our money properly and fix the weather. We will not be driving, the Earth will be happy and we will all live like those in Sudan. If we can just get those pesky Chinese to allow 1 baby per 3 households, and get India to have limits also, all will be peachy.
p.s. If you actually click on the link to the list of scientists you can research them and find out they are not bought by “Big Oil”. It is funny however that those “scientists” that report the devastating results of Al Gores dreams are completely bought by “Big Environment”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the links to the names of those who signed the letter you posted didn’t work for me.
Saying that our primary focus should not be on wealth generation is not the same as saying economic decline will solve everything. This is not an either/or issue, this is all about BALANCE.
I do, however, think the only way we will have any incentive to be more efficient with our use of a resource such as oil, is for the price to be high enough that we pay attention to how much we are using. There is a great discussion about the economics of car usage here:
http://www.phillycarshare.org/28/vision/history.php
“ ... automobiles, while necessary in our society, are abundantly overused because they are priced inappropriately. If we simply rearrange the costs, we can reduce their use. And if the solution saves people money and feels convenient, it can be driven by the market: a market-driven environmental movement. ... Economics are a powerful force driving automobiles, because cars are such “lumpy” investments. It is possible to own one or two cars, for example, but not one tenth or one-and-a-half. Once a car is owned, almost all its costs become “sunk” and unrelated to miles driven. Consider that a ten-mile roundtrip in Philadelphia costs $2.60 on SEPTA but only 98 cents in gas. Driving seems cheap on the margin. Rationally, car owners choose to drive.
What if we could flip those economics—if cars were virtually free to access but expensive to drive? What if owning cost $0, while gas cost $15 per gallon? We might expect massive changes in travel behavior. People probably would drive much less, choosing more often to walk, bike, and take transit. “
I don’t believe the best way to address these issues is government regulation, I believe it is economics. We have become used to cheap oil. See this summary of the inflation-adjusted cost of a gallon of gas. From 1986 to 2005, we got used to really cheap gas. The second link is the raw data, adjusted for inflation. Gas prices now are not so much “extremely high” historically, but they are very high compared to the prices we saw in 1986 - 2005.
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/adjusted.txt
Will we stop driving? No, I don’t think anyone is talking about that. Will we and should we drive less? I hope so. I don’t know where you live, but there are places like DC that I don’t even want to go, I don’t know how they stand the traffic down there. Forget the environmental issues, traffic congestion is just annoying and frustrating, and everyone will be happier if we have less of that!
Does this mean we abandon cars and live like in Sudan? That is quite a jump, I don’t think so. But maybe we can rearrange our driving habits, build smarter, more efficient cars, cooperate a little more, get to DC in 2 hours instead of 4, etc.
Do we really need to be so sarcastic? There is a middle ground here. We should be using our various perspectives on these issues to come up with solutions that work for everyone, not just for the US but for the world. Rather than fighting about who is right, we should be open to understanding all of the angles. You are providing a valuable perspective here, but it will be so much more helpful to everyone if we take the fight out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are not the world police, we are not here to solve the world’s problems. I am not one to “take the fight out”, I fight for my views. I keep score at sporting events, I compete to win, not just for fun. I earn my money (not much in the horticulture field) and I want to spend it my way. I am not wealthy, I don’t have a private jet and a streached Hummer, but one day, I want to be rich! I want a big house, and the choice to buy a car with a huge engine that gets 5 mpg. This is why some of us work hard, this is why I dream big. I do not want a plane ride to be a once in a lifetime event, or distance from home to determine where I work. If balance is what we are looking for, take all the hands off and let it BALANCE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crespidus - Apr 29, 2008 03:10pm We are not the world police, we are not here to solve the world’s problems. I am not one to “take the fight out”, I fight for my views. I keep score at sporting events, I compete to win, not just for fun. I earn my money (not much in the horticulture field) and I want to spend it my way. I am not wealthy, I don’t have a private jet and a streached Hummer, but one day, I want to be rich! I want a big house, and the choice to buy a car with a huge engine that gets 5 mpg. This is why some of us work hard, this is why I dream big. I do not want a plane ride to be a once in a lifetime event, or distance from home to determine where I work. If balance is what we are looking for, take all the hands off and let it BALANCE!!!
...And that is exactly what is happening. XOXO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crespi—I’ve been thinking and thinking about your reply. I have a lot of thoughts, I’m not sure how organized they will be, but it is 4 am, I woke up and can’t sleep, so I’m just going to rattle off some thoughts…
I live in DE, and we have quite a few crepe myrtles and 3 camellias in our yard. A friend who is very knowledgeable (I think I can’t spell at 4 am, sorry), tells me that there is no way these plants would survive this far north if it were 10 or 20 years ago. As a horticulturist, I am wondering if you are seeing these kinds of changes where you live. Maybe the varieties are hardier? But he thinks not, with other changes he is seeing, he says the climate is definitely warmer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently visited Mt. Vernon. Did you know George Washington’s vision for America was that it could be a “granary to the world”?
Just thought that was interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The themes of being rich and being “unrestricted” (my words) are interesting.
There is the question of defining what it means to be successful and what it means to be rich. You sound like it is really important to you to be independent and not held back by the effects on others of what you do.
Why do you want to be rich? To be able to do whatever you want? How rich is rich enough? Will being rich make you happy?
I heard a speaker several months ago say that someone had done a study, and asked people of various income levels how much money (I think annual income) would make them feel “rich”. At EVERY income level, even the very high ones, the response amount was higher than what the person currently had. In other words, if the goal is to be rich, that goal is a moving target.
I have a favorite book, called Happiness is a Serious Problem, by Dennis Prager. He also talks about humans’ “insatiable nature”. We always want more. His discussions of the relationships between professional success, material success, and happiness are really thought-provoking.
But we could ask all these questions of our country as a whole, and of our culture. How much is enough? Should we just grab it all, and not care about the effects on the rest of the world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
My final question for you (and I think you may be getting tired of seeing my face :) ) for tonight is:
Do you listen to Jack Johnson’s music? Do you like it? Do you listen to the lyrics? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, there is nothing wrong with just listening to music because you like the sound. But I wonder if you listen to Jack enough if some of the lyrics don’t annoy you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
jlc mom - May 10, 2008 07:54am Crespi—I’ve been thinking and thinking about your reply. I have a lot of thoughts, I’m not sure how organized they will be, but it is 4 am, I woke up and can’t sleep, so I’m just going to rattle off some thoughts…
I live in DE, and we have quite a few crepe myrtles and 3 camellias in our yard. A friend who is very knowledgeable (I think I can’t spell at 4 am, sorry), tells me that there is no way these plants would survive this far north if it were 10 or 20 years ago. As a horticulturist, I am wondering if you are seeing these kinds of changes where you live. Maybe the varieties are hardier? But he thinks not, with other changes he is seeing, he says the climate is definitely warmer.
Breeding for hardiness is now competing with color and flower size in the plant industry. I believe it is due to the national TV shows, (HGTV, etc.), introducing new trees, shrubs to colder markets. I also think as container gardens become more widely used, the hardy zone of a plant is streached because people don’t expect them to live all year. I am a big beliver in microclimates, and “zonal denial.” I try anything twice before I believe it will not work for me. This year I lost some Grevillas, and Protea that had survived the previous 5 years, it was the 12th coldest April in the last 120 years. I hope you enjoy your shrubs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Happiness is a serious problem” Really. Don’t think I will read that one. What I think is the serious problem is becoming more successful, obtaining more money for my hard work, and having to decide if I can afford it. I think your example of the sliding scale “Rich” is on is interesting also. Without that moving target, would we become complacent and less productive? Without the goal of “rich” would the same number of people be employed by Mr. Gates at Microsoft, or Howie Lincoln at Starbucks? They could have stoped a long time ago, when they were rich, but continued, fueled by money, power, or whatever.
I do listen to Jacks music, and love it. I am a very lyrical person, my musical talent is zero, I am a “professional listener.” To tell you the truth, some of the lyrics kind of make me shake my head. I enjoy the songs, I really love the emotion and intamacy of the music, but I also did not buy the new album. Don’t know if I will or not, I might wait until after the coming 10 year “halt” on Global Warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jlc mom - May 10, 2008 07:56am Recently visited Mt. Vernon. Did you know George Washington’s vision for America was that it could be a “granary to the world”?
Just thought that was interesting.
Do you also find it interesting that for the first time ever we are importing wheat? Farmers are planting corn to get Gov’t payouts on “biofuel” and the increased corn prices the “ethanol bubble” has created.
|
|
